nopes i dont feel so ...
Disarmament is not advisable. Suppose
in case you imagine we have disarmed.
Everybody in peace a sudden terrorist
attack on any country a three men
just start firing like they did in 26/11
attack how the country would be able
to protect their citizens, how to ensure
security is the million dollar question?
If you think of settlement they are
terrorist they have only one motive
that is killing, on the other hand if you
think of defending there are no arms.
So disarmament is not advisable which
posses a high security threat.
Universal disarmament sounds crazy, if
implemented it will be good but,
common guys is it practically possible?
will all countries have a nod for this?
no country is happy with its boundary,
some countries resolve it peacefully
while others are agitated.
Without arms and weaponry a country
cannot counter the insurgency. So I
suggest it will not be a bad idea if were
are defensive and prepared.
I would like to add that armaments
should be used as offensive tool rather
than defencive onces so...universal
disarmament is not a good option but
maintain peace and stability should be
Ban on disarmament should not be
supported but adding of restriction and
imposition should be opted..
Yes i agree universal disarmament is
not possible because terrorism is on
the peak and it has affected almost all
the countries . So for the protection of
any nation or people or community
arms are required
Yes, I do agree that arms as must in
the current world scenario. but arms
should only be used for safety and
security. Strictly not to create panic or
to destroy the world peace. In present
situation all nations are having a fear
against terrorism and such anti social
elements. So nations should use these
arms to maintain world peace not to